1080i is downconverted from 1920x1200, which is what uncompressed HD is,
one of the big advantages of the 23" panels is they display uncompressed
HD pixel-for-pixel. There's a reason I specified uncompressed HD.
You are correct about the pixel format, I got old-fashioned NTSC mixed
up with HD for a second.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Wrong, HDTV uses square pixels, the format is
actually 1080x1920 which is 16x9. That's why its
called "1080i", its not 1200 pixels vertically.
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Don't forget overscan on TV displays and the fact that video pixels are
rectangular and computer display pixels are square. It screws with the
aspect ratio. Uncompressed HD video is only 16x9 on a TV due to having
rectangular pixels, the actual resolution (1920x1200) is 16x10.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Im not disagreeing, Im just wondering WHY WHY WHY?
The new world standard for widescreen video is
16x9 so why in the world would they use something
close but not matching. that's what I don't get....
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
Resolution and aspect ratio are fixed on an LCD, given square pixels,
resolution dictates aspect ratio on an LCD and one can compute the
latter from the former. Widescreen monitors are mostly 16x10 (needless
to say, the rare widescreen CRT's may be different).
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
"most" monitiors are 16x10? I don't get it.
I was talking about the pixel array which
of course could be different than the screen
aspect ratio ( at least on a crt it can).
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
No, that's typical for a 20" widescreen LCD. Most monitors are 16x10
rather than 16x9.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Isnt that an odd aspect ratio? neither the traditional 4x3 or the
newer 16x9. Whats the deal on that? JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
I run my 20-inch Apple Cinema Display (trendy flat panel:-) at 1680 x
1050. It's superb for image editing and is beautifully in synch with
my printer. Paul
On Nov 12, 2005, at 4:02 PM, William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Modern PC hardware, Was: Re: Full Frame
FWIW, One thing I did just upgrade regarding image editing and
PCing
in general is my monitor. I switched to a 19" super trinitron CRT
running at 1200x1600 and the difference is huge compared to my old
monitor. I would never go back to 960x1280 and that's about all you
can get on the trendy "flat panel" LCD displays at this point.
I'm not ready to give up on CRT monitors yet either. My brother in
law
has a really nice 21" screen, I'm not sure who makes it, that I am a
little envious of. Right now I have a 19" Samsung Syncmaster which has
been quite good, but my video card wont support a big enough screen at
a refresh rate I can live with.
I can see a Matrox video card in my future.
William Robb
